Given that animals will eat a lot of crops in their life and burn through those calories in order to grow, it seems self evident that more crops will be required than eating the crops directly. Why is it a lie?
> Can we agree to stop raising animals >specifically< for killing and consumption?
No, because we omnivores enjoy eating animals, and there are not enough which die of natural causes to go around, and many natural causes make the meat unsafe to eat.
This is controversial, but I feel that eating animals is fundamental to being human and that to eat only plants is less than human — perhaps paradoxically, like an animal. I know many, many people disagree, but it’s how I feel, and no amount of rational argument will change that.
Crop fields do indeed disrupt the habitats of wild animals, and wild animals are also killed when harvesting plants. However, this point makes the case for a plant-based diet and not against it, since many more plants are required to produce a measure of animal flesh for food (often as high as 12:1) than are required to produce an equal measure of plants for food (which is obviously 1:1). Because of this, a plant-based diet causes less suffering and death than one that includes animals.
Crop fields do indeed disrupt the habitats of wild animals, and wild animals are also killed when harvesting plants. However, this point makes the case for a plant-based diet and not against it, since many more plants are required to produce a measure of animal flesh for food (often as high as 12:1) than are required to produce an equal measure of plants for food (which is obviously 1:1). Because of this, a plant-based diet causes less suffering and death than one that includes animals.
This study estimates 7.3 billion animals die each year from harvested cropland in the US alone (not including insects).
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-018-9733-8